The more I think about it, the more the Supreme Court’s decision on the Hobby Lobby case bothers me. I don’t disagree with the decision, but I don’t like what…

The more I think about it, the more the Supreme Court’s decision on the Hobby Lobby case bothers me.

I don’t disagree with the decision, but I don’t like what it reveals about our culture. Case in point, Deroy Murdock listed all the contraceptives that were covered by Hobby Lobby before the decision and that would be covered after the decision.

Here you go –

Male condoms

Female condoms

Diaphragms with spermicide

Sponges with spermicide

Cervical caps with spermicide

Spermicide alone

Birth-control pills with estrogen and progestin (“Combined Pill)

Birth-control pills with progestin alone (“The Mini Pill)

Birth control pills (extended/continuous use)

Contraceptive patches

Contraceptive rings

Progestin injections

Implantable rods

Vasectomies

Female sterilization surgeries

Female sterilization implants

Sixteen. And only two of them are used by men. The other fourteen are a woman’s “responsibility.” [The Supreme Court decision simply backed Hobby Lobby’s decision to not fund the other four included in the HHS mandate which can work as an abortifacient by causing the embryo to not attach to the wall of the uterus, thereby causing this unique human organism – that’s science, not religion – to die.]

If we’re supposed to be dealing in a world of equality, shouldn’t there be a few more types of contraception that apply to men? After all, they’re the ones who are fertile all or most of the time.

Some of the hormonal contraceptives have had fatal effects on women. (Google it.) Makes it seem like women are sort of … disposable.

Every once in a while, a news story will surface about a pill for men. And then it disappears. I think it’s Prof. Janet Smith in her “Contraception, Why Not?” talk who referenced early attempts to create a pill for men, but some of the men in the study suffered…”shrinkage.”

Death v. “shrinkage.” I’ll just leave it at that.

But there is news of a remote controlled birth control computer chip that could be implanted in a woman for up to sixteen years. A remote control could be used to turn it on and off.

Wow. Just wow.

Can we not see the potential for abuse? Does it take a Law & Order SVU episode to see how a woman’s fertility could be controlled by a man – an abusive husband, boyfriend, pimp, trafficker. And so on.

As it was, I didn’t think that contraception empowered women. This list just reminds me of how much women can be burdened with contraception, particularly the responsibility for any child that might be conceived. Maybe the dad can be forced to pay child support, but that’s it.

And, by and large, we as a culture are ok with that.

This is exactly the result of some forms of feminism that concentrate on a woman’s pelvic region.

This is a picture of yesterday’s San Jose Mercury News, front page, above the fold. The headline: CONTRACEPTIVE BENEFIT TAKES HIT Underneath that it reads: COMPANIES THAT OBJECT CAN NOW…

This is a picture of yesterday’s San Jose Mercury News, front page, above the fold. The headline:

CONTRACEPTIVE BENEFIT TAKES HIT

Underneath that it reads:

COMPANIES THAT OBJECT CAN NOW AVOID COVERAGE.

Well, yes, maybe; but mostly no.

Fact #1: The only companies that can avoid coverage are those which family run, have strongly held religious beliefs, and are closely run by the family.

Fact #2: Most companies will not even consider cutting contraceptive coverage because offering contraception reduces the costs of pre-natal, maternity, and delivery care.

In other words, most people who rely on their health insurance for their contraception (because working people can’t afford the average $9/mo for contraceptive pills, I guess) will still be covered. Contraception will still be widely available and easily accessible, often even free (paid for by the government, that is). It’s just that now the Supreme Court has ruled that a small segment of the population doesn’t have to pay for someone else’s contraception.

Even if you support the use of contraception, there is no war against you.

Yesterday’s SCOTUS ruling on the Hobby Lobby case was a welcoming gesture not only towards religious freedom, but also freedom of conscience. Lots of people are commenting; so I’ll offer…

Yesterday’s SCOTUS ruling on the Hobby Lobby case was a welcoming gesture not only towards religious freedom, but also freedom of conscience.

Lots of people are commenting; so I’ll offer a few quick thoughts myself. This decision doesn’t mean that we rest and that the battle is over. Here are two considerations:

Some states, definitely Washington state, already required businesses to offer contraception coverage beforethe HHS Mandate. Now that the Supreme Court has ruled clearly that closely run family businesses can exempt themselves from the Mandate, I hope that these businesses will be taking the necessary steps, even turning to the courts. For those businesses which have had to pay for the coverage but have not utilized it, I wonder if a good attorney could even get them a reimbursement of funds they were required to pay…illegally.

Health care reform has a long way to go. Justice Alito didn’t say this specifically in his decision for the majority, but some of his language could be taken to hint at it. Setting aside the financial mess of our current system, there are at least two other considerations.

1. We need a movement to challenge the definition of contraception as something that falls under health care. In fact, contraception usually works to keep the female body from working as it should. Definitions are very important. At the UN, for example, the Catholic Church and other organizations have worked effectively to keep the term “reproductive health” from including abortion. If someone is interested, I have an idea for a campaign that could work. I already own the URLs. Just need someone with bandwidth and funds. Contact me offline if you are that person – no looky loos.

2. Health insurance is a mess. It used to be something that only covered major illnesses. For a variety of reasons, many related to employee compensation, it has come to cover just about everything. Maybe we need to curtail health insurance so that it covers major health issues. Then patients might be a little more aggressive in how they navigate their health care, particularly with regard to cost. As far as I can tell, the model where insurance covers just about everything ends up costing doctors a lot in terms of administrative services, which in turn drives up the cost of the medical service delivered.

Yesterday’s witness before the Supreme Court was fantastic. The news coverage that I saw showed mainly pro-lifers. ABCNews interesting identified them as “anti-abortion rights pro-lifers.” I love that “pro-life” got into the mix. That could be the sign of a big shift in language, not unlike when Planned Parenthood started to be identified on cable and network news as “the largest provider of abortions.” The commentator also said that there were some NOW protesters. But the cameras never showed them. Hmmmm….

Also the face of the movement against the HHS Mandate was that of young women for whom pregnancy is still relevant. Too often, I’ve seen these protests/discussions/debates carried out by women (on both sides of the issue) who are obviously too old for this to be a personal issue.

And I saw Lori Windham, one of the attorneys for Hobby Lobby, give her remarks on the steps of SCOTUS. She was simply amazing. Her analysis was good, her delivery was great. She did not sound like an attorney.